fap fap fap fap

how shes really fat and definitely not as hot as alison bree

<--

Think about a table with all players totally equal in skill. All that comes off the table is the rake. (let's ignore variance and cash-outs for now). Now add in one really good player. Now it's rake + skilled players earn.

Now the lifecycle for the casual player was just shortened, dramatically.



I agree in theory. Not sure if it'll work in practice.

but thats not at all realistic. no matter what you do, there will always be a discrepancy in skill. and variance will bust players plenty fast anyway.

You're not thinking about it from all angles. Think about the scenario discussed by CDL, Dyenimator and myself from the casual player, who wants to have fun (and no one enjoys losing) and the casino (who wants to maximize long-term profits, which includes making the casual players happy, since the casinos biggest issue is the never-ending battle for customer acquisition - a battle that is made way way more difficult when they cater to the pros via rake back, allowing 20-tables, etc etc) in addition to a "what's best for me" perspective.

I'm not saying that scenario is correct in reality, (I'd certainly need some of the data I mentioned yesterday), but there is plenty of reason and some tangentially related real world examples to suggest that it's quite possibly the optimal scenario for both casual players and the casinos (and a small portion of online pros).

I think it's a lot closer than you are suggesting, and that you are oversimplifying. I agree that the casual player is the person who got squeezed out - the guy who was breakeven in 2006 would be a huge loser by the time Black Friday rolled around if he played in the same games. I'm just not sure that by catering to casual players that they would generate more rake.

Clark,

You are leaving out the benefit from regs filling seats. Not sure that outweighs what you are bringing up, certainly doesn't seem to at small stakes live, but how many hands of rake are you giving up with nobody multitabling?

Going after winners vs casual players is a long-term/short-term gain battle.

the recreational player doesn't give a crap about rake or reg infested tables. the next time i play live and here some guy who's there just pissing money away saying "holy **** you guys take HOW MUCH out of every pot?!" will be the first

I agree that they don't care about rake, but I have to believe that a lot of recreational players hate the way people play online. At least that's the kind of bitching I heard whenever I played B&M.

Indirectly they do. As Clark said, nobody likes to lose money. If they never win that won't make them happy.

Regs make the game less fun as well. If you are in the mood just to donk it up would you rather play a table where everyone else is 20/15 or 40/20?

clark is right, this is really basic stuff guys.

I'm not at all suggesting its a slam dunk. Like I've said, I think one can better understand the viability with access to the right data. Sadly, I don't have access to data from say Stars or whatever. But understanding the revenue taken out of the ecosystem by pros (profit + rakeback) vs. the profit taken by the casino, would help. Also, some econometric modeling would need to be done to understand ratios of players with finite vs. less finite bankrolls, and to see long-term stickiness of players who are closer to breakeven vs. players who are losers.

That all said, it's undeniable that the casinos spend a huge % of their operating costs on pros via rakeback and massively increased customer acquisition costs. Whether or not in the long term that is a good investment by the casino because of rake generated by the pros themselves is really the question.

The biggest issue is that in a new online market in the USA, pro players are likely necessary at first to provide sufficient game selection. So you're right in that there are long-term benefits. However, there are ways to address that. There's nothing that suggests a site couldn't curtail rakeback dramatically once it deemed that it had a sufficient casual player base to still have enough game selection even with dramatically reduced pros. And some pros would stay because the games would instantly get better. It's possible that the low and middle-range of successful online pros would do well in this environment.

oh okay, case closed. i guess that's why the sites kept their restrictions on amount of tables you can play and kept limits people could play artificially low?

To be clear, I don't think the limits offered is that big a deal.

Having nothing but regs is bad for the casinos doesn't mean that you don't cater at all to regs. Regs keep games consistently going. There's some balance that needs to be struck. Also don't think that # of tables and limits kept is going to be the biggest drain on fish. The drains will be stuff like PT and PTR. It's not a coincidence that my winrate was much, much better before data mining became so widespread.

It'll be interesting to see how the market re-forms once legalization passes.

The fact that these websites didn't cut back on promotional spending and also didn't want to cap the number of tables absolutely a big reason question whether not this alternative hypothesis has any merit at all because without question those websites have the information to do the analysis to understand what the ROI is both short and long-term on the professional player

That was voice typed sorry if it's choppy

So here's the at hand. I need to request Bank Of America monies for my merge monies. Thang is G10 has $100K+ worth of successful transfers, all with me sending 2nd.

Calm And Collected, while a beast of posting efficiency and all around great addition to the sporting events scene, has zero rep in the trading monies community.

Is there a MOD that can confirm in the trading thread that I am who I am when the time comes?

Any other suggestions?

I will say this, Cl.ar.k sure knows a lot about what's going on considering he is a LIVE LIMIT player.

i dont think removing winning players ensures that more casual players will join. now the next best players are the winners, and similar amounts of money is made by them.

i dont see why the sites care if players win money so long as tons of games are running. winning players are not taking money from the site.

the goal should not be to attempt to eliminate winners, but to maximize the amount of games and hands played. sometimes the methods of achieving those goals align, sometimes they dont.

Yeah, you called me a "fa.ggot" like 20 times in one post for absolutely no reason, let me know how I can help.

why is that not a coincidence? are you not able to analyze and process data as well as others?

There was definitely a double penetration accusation or two thrown around.

This is not at all true.

It's not caring "if they win money". Get outside of your perspective a little more. I've clearly stated the question. It's about customer lifecycle, long term revenes, profit margin. Big winners are taking players from the ecosystem, which hurts everyone except, of course, big winners.

The goal isn't to eliminate winners, that's obviously not possible. The discussed scenario (higher rake, no rakeback, limits on #tables played, possibly killing HUDs if feasible) still allows many players to win. It also is much more beneficial to the casual player, which could result in more games and a better experience for them. It also could be more profitable for the casino (again, more data needed). As I've said, many pros would still play there because suddenly the games are way better. Frankly, given your personal situation, it seems to me you'd potentially be one of the winners in this.